No Conclusive Evidence Supporting A Presumption of Joint Custody

(emphasis mine)

Despite extensive research by numerous academics, there is no conclusive evidence to support a presumption of joint custody. In fact, to the contrary, policy recommendations are now emerging urging states not to mandate any particular presumption but to continue to refine efforts to see families as unique entities deserving fresh scrutiny in each case. The American Bar Association favors a case-by-case determination without rigid presumptions for or against joint custody. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges instructs judges not to presume that joint custody is in the best interest of children. While researchers make clear that families wishing to embark on joint custody should not be discouraged from doing so, they urge states not to mandate joint custody, as it is not the panacea it is sometimes presented to be.

Early studies purporting to demonstrate the success of joint custody were erroneously relied upon to support a presumption of joint custody. These studies were highly selective, examining only the experience of parents who entered into joint custody arrangements voluntarily, or suffered from poor research methodologies - selecting samples that were too small or unrepresentative, failing to include control or comparison groups, or failing to follow up on families over time. One of the first studies that included consideration of court-imposed joint custody found that none of the arrangements were “successful” one year after the arrangement began. More recent studies have shown that unresolved parental conflict correlates poorly with the level of cooperation necessary for a successful joint custody arrangement and has detrimental effects on children, including emotional and behavioral disturbances.

In early 1998, as part of a major study of its custody law, the state of Washington examined peer-reviewed articles and books about research on post-divorce parenting and child adjustment and produced an extensive overview of the findings of those studies that is highly relevant to the inquiry raised by this Committee. The Washington report concludes that joint physical custody in high conflict families is detrimental to children and does not accomplish the goal of fostering better communication between parents but instead may make matters worse. It goes on to assert that “experts in the field agree that ‘one size fits all’ approaches to developing post-divorce parenting arrangements are inappropriate and may be harmful to some families.”

Specifically, the Washington report discusses two studies showing that, while substantial contact with both parents is positive for children if there is relatively little conflict between the parents, the reverse is true when there is elevated conflict (not including domestic violence) between the parents. Among families with pre-existing conflict, there does not appear to be any evidence that the conflict ends after divorce. Instead, such families often “disengage” from one another, communicating as little as possible and parenting in completely separate ways. One group of researchers also found that in custody cases with joint custody, there was a higher incidence of return to the courts for further action.

Read the entire article:





Okay, so parental alienation and joint custody are the hallmarks of the father's supremacy movement. Parental alienation=blame it on the mother and escape culpability of abuse, joint custody=elimination of child support and frequent and continuing contact and CONTROL over the ex and children. It just doesn't get any easier than that.

Father's groups will swear that creating a presumption of joint custody is the BEST thing in the world...for the children, that is. However, unless you enjoy being shuffled back and forth between two residences, in an attempt to keep things equal, the only way I see it is as the selfish interests of the father. A child should maintain the same relationship with the person who provided for the primary care in the household. It isn't that difficult of a concept.

You see, what you must ask these angry fathers is: What was your relationship and responsibility to the child like when the household was intact? Why is this question always avoided? If a father was bringing home the bacon before, maybe going to the baseball games, maybe giving a little kiss at the end of the night, why should this change and all of a sudden he doesn't want to support the child and all of a sudden he wants to act like he's been father of the year and he wants everything 50-50, except for the fact that he's really going to pawn the caretaking off to his new girlfriend/wife or parents? Tell me that isn't the case!

If it was 50-50 before, then fine! All I'm saying is, keep it the same...if, indeed, it is about the chidren...

6 advocates for peace:

Anonymous said...

Your site is so filled with lies and misinformation it is hard to know where to start. Firstly, there is not a single credible research study that says sole custody is good for children and over 225 that conclude it is bad. Dr. Warren Farrell collected all the best studies (mostly longtudinal) over 13 years and concluded that it is scientific FACT (a 95% standard) that joint custody is better by 6 to 24 TIMES in every measured metric. See
Of course anyone with common sense knows this and can understand living in a world with two sexes requires growing up in one to be prepared and understand both sexes. I consider your site essentially no better than a hate crime against children and fathers. You will go down in history as a nut case. Your moderation alone shows you work to prevent the trusth from getting out for some sick motive.

vawnews said...

First of all, there is plenty of research that says that sole custody is good for children. Aside from that, ASK THE DAMN CHILDREN!

Please don't mention Farrell on here. This is a NO PED ZONE.

Joint Custody is is best for those who CHOOSE to do so and know their situations best. DUH!

There can be no comparison between choosing to, and being ordered to. Apparently, you, and many others, can't figure that out.

Anonymous said...

Hey Randy. In the states there is something called the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Both have be violated by US Family Courts for decades. Clearly shown by the statistical out comes in child custody cases. These when 90% of all custody cases come out in the favor of mother. There is something wrong. All men can not be abusers as you claim. Not only are men entitled to "equal protection under the law" in any civil case but so are children. In the "best interest of a child" equal access to both parents and all relatives is a birth right. The notion that a child only needs mother is purely subjective and invented probably by an over bearing mother.
Even the psychological evaluations are very subjective. Psychology is not an exact science and is very low on the list of predictable sciences. Ideas
about raising children come and go with the popularity of magazines. Ideas on this so called science change every 5-10 years. Hey does Canada
have a Constitution?

Anonymous said...

Can only imagine how bad of a person the above commenter is.
EqualParenting is a nonsense theory that marginalizes and disrespects mothers.

Anonymous said...

You selfish men and women. All you do is use children as pawns. If you do not want to raise them then don't have them. So, if you are going to put them in daycare all day while you work why does it matter who has the child during the week? All you do is come home (I hope), cook dinner (I hope), and put them to bed. It is commen sense that it would be less stressful for a child to not bounce between homes every other week. Duh! Forget your contrived research. Quite trying to assuage your guilt and move on with what is best for the child. Hint... Parent who can be with child more hours during the weekday is better choice wether father or mother. Duh!!! Every case is different. Duh!!

Rj said...

Maybe you should be talking to the ANTI-choice activists.

Any presumption of anything is....stupid....